• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

danarhea said:
OK, title is misleading. This was a panel in the DC court, not the full court. And 2 hours later, the full 4th Appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies are not illegal, which makes it 3 appeals courts to one court panel that the subsidies are legal. 4 rulings, and there is a divide, which means that this will go straight to SCOTUS. That final decision will be made later this year, and maybe sooner if this case is fast tracked.

And kudos to FOX News, who originally mistakenly reported to it's viewers that today's decision by the DC appellate court panel was a SCOTUS decision. LOL.
Click to expand...

And when it does make it to Robert's Court there is no doubt how it will rule. Just another yawn from some partisan Judges wet dream. When will they learn that the ACA is here to stay, millions of people are depending on it and more are liking it by the day.
 
LowDown said:
I'm convinced that the ruling you cite is correct. Section 1321 of the ACA clearly authorizes the creation of federal exchanges, and so it could not have been the intent of the law to exclude the federal exchanges from subsidies regardless of the language of section 1311.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the ruling of the DC panel takes sections 1311 and 1321 into account and concludes that state and federal exchanges are distinct and that subsidies are authorized only for state exchanges.

Things appear to turn on a fine hair.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS thinks. In any case, if the ACA had been passed with broad support this would not be a problem. Obama has to be queazy about the prospect of relying on the Roberts Court to save his bacon.
 
danarhea said:
OK, title is misleading. This was a panel in the DC court, not the full court. And 2 hours later, the full 4th Appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies are not illegal, which makes it 3 appeals courts to one court panel that the subsidies are legal. 4 rulings, and there is a divide, which means that this will go straight to SCOTUS. That final decision will be made later this year, and maybe sooner if this case is fast tracked.

And kudos to FOX News, who originally mistakenly reported to it's viewers that today's decision by the DC appellate court panel was a SCOTUS decision. LOL.
Click to expand...

Yep, but it was a milquetoast decision. They outright said that the arguments were pretty evenly matched on either side with the subsidy taking only a very slight edge, thus the decision. They're forcing it to SCOTUS.
 
LowDown said:
On the other hand, the ruling of the DC panel takes sections 1311 and 1321 into account and concludes that state and federal exchanges are distinct and that subsidies are authorized only for state exchanges.

Things appear to turn on a fine hair.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS thinks. In any case, if the ACA had been passed with broad support this would not be a problem. Obama has to be queazy about the prospect of relying on the Roberts Court to save his bacon.
Click to expand...

LOL Robert's would make a mockery of his Court if his decision on the ACA was "overturned" by some lower court.. This is another one in the bag for Obama and you might as well get used to it.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Robert's would make a mockery of his Court if his decision on the ACA was "overturned" by some lower court.. This is another one in the bag for Obama and you might as well get used to it.
Click to expand...

Lower courts cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Robert's would make a mockery of his Court if his decision on the ACA was "overturned" by some lower court.. This is another one in the bag for Obama and you might as well get used to it.
Click to expand...

The issues raised by this case and the previous case are completely different. There would be no embarrassment in ruling against the ACA this time. That idea is silly.

You might want to wait until those chickens hatch to count them.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

iguanaman said:
LOL Robert's would make a mockery of his Court if his decision on the ACA was "overturned" by some lower court.. This is another one in the bag for Obama and you might as well get used to it.
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court overturns it, it would be the Supreme Court overturning it, not a lower court.

That said, this SCOTUS is pretty unpredictable. Hell, it was Roberts who upheld Obamacare in the first place. And then they side with religion over the law. So who knows?
 
LowDown said:
The issues raised by this case and the previous case are completely different. There would be no embarrassment in ruling against the ACA this time. That idea is silly.

You might want to wait until those chickens hatch to count them.
Click to expand...

Subsidies were already approved by the SC, they are part and parcel with the ACA. They will never be declared illegal now.
 
iguanaman said:
Subsidies were already approved by the SC, they are part and parcel with the ACA. They will never be declared illegal now.
Click to expand...

Subsidies were upheld, but this case was never brought before them. They never made any decision on who is eligible for the subsidies.
 
The Man said:
If the Supreme Court overturns it, it would be the Supreme Court overturning it, not a lower court.

That said, this SCOTUS is pretty unpredictable. Hell, it was Roberts who upheld Obamacare in the first place. And then they side with religion over the law. So who knows?
Click to expand...

Regardless, It would be the SC overturning their own approval of the law, they have already ruled on subsidies. No technicality is going to change their minds.
 
iguanaman said:
It would be the SC overturning their own approval of the law, they have already ruled on subsidies.
Click to expand...

No, they ruled that the individual mandate could stand, on the grounds that it is a 'tax penalty' type thingy. They never ruled on anything having to do with subsidies.
 
iguanaman said:
Subsidies were already approved by the SC, they are part and parcel with the ACA. They will never be declared illegal now.
Click to expand...

Not the issue. At issue is who pays for those subsidies, the feds or the states.
 
The Man said:
No, they ruled that the individual mandate could stand, on the grounds that it is a 'tax penalty' type thingy. They never ruled on anything having to do with subsidies.
Click to expand...

So it is your belief that they never read anything else but the mandate part? I believe the entire law was challenged on Constitutional grounds and that includes subsidies.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

iguanaman said:
So it is your belief that they never read anything else but the mandate part? I believe the entire law was challenged on Constitutional grounds and that includes subsidies.
Click to expand...

No, they only ruled on what was brought before them to be judged: the individual mandate, the states' expansion of Medicaid and the exchanges, and the only one of those that they upheld was the individual mandate tax penalty thingy. The subsidies have never been brought before them for them to judge or comment on.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
So it is your belief that they never read anything else but the mandate part? I believe the entire law was challenged on Constitutional grounds and that includes subsidies.
Click to expand...

That is not true. The Man is correct about the prior case.
 
ludin said:
what is interesting is that this came out of the DC court of appeals which is the one that obama was trying to stack because they were destroying him on just about everything.
i guess this stacking attempt didn't work.
Click to expand...

It came out of the DC circuit because they have jurisdiction.
 
Perotista said:
So what you are saying it doesn't matter one iota how the law was written, what it says in plain English. What matters is the stacking of the D.C. court by this president so he can interpret any law how he sees fit regardless of what the law actually says?
Click to expand...
That's how the law works in this country. It's not what the law says, it's what some judge says it says (or what some judge thinks it should say to help us "progress" as a country).
 
sangha said:
The only way that can be determined is if you examine the entire text of the bill to see if there are any provisions worded in a way that conflicts with text in Sec 1311 (the section that states that the tax credits are only authorized is exchanges "established by the States")

IOW, the before you can say "According to the way the law is written" you have to look at the entire bill, and not just one phrase
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll buy that. But according to that paragraph it does seem pretty straight forward. As straight forward and lawyer legislature who let lobbyist write most of the bills can be. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the bill was written which states this can't be done in para A, but in Para B the same law states this will be done.

Does anybody know what the heck is going in Washington these days? Why do we the people keep electing imbeciles. I know, because we the people like their bumper sticker slogans and they tell us what we want to hear.
 
Taylor said:
That's how the law works in this country. It's not what the law says, it's what some judge says it says (or what some judge thinks it should say to help us "progress" as a country).
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is easy to see why the federal government has become omni-powerful when section 8, Article I of the Constitution is completely ignored as to what powers the federal will have. Along with the 10th Amendment with states all the rest of the power resides with the states or the people.
 
Perotista said:
Does anybody know what the heck is going in Washington these days? Why do we the people keep electing imbeciles. I know, because we the people like their bumper sticker slogans and they tell us what we want to hear.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but everyone thinks congress and the senate is awful, but their congressman and senators are great, it's everyone else's that are the problem.
 
jonny5 said:
They obviously have their own agenda, and couldnt find away around it. Shouldnt they be impartial?
Click to expand...

That's like saying the Supreme Court should be impartial, but they're clearly not. They're not even pretending to be anymore. It's all political and personal bias, the Constitution doesn't even enter into it anymore.
 
The Man said:
Not only that, but everyone thinks congress and the senate is awful, but their congressman and senators are great, it's everyone else's that are the problem.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we do get the government we deserve and oh boy, do we ever deserve this one.
 
Cephus said:
That's like saying the Supreme Court should be impartial, but they're clearly not. They're not even pretending to be anymore. It's all political and personal bias, the Constitution doesn't even enter into it anymore.
Click to expand...

They are supposed to be partial, towards the Constitution. I agree they are not that.
 
Perotista said:
Okay, I'll buy that. But according to that paragraph it does seem pretty straight forward. As straight forward and lawyer legislature who let lobbyist write most of the bills can be. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the bill was written which states this can't be done in para A, but in Para B the same law states this will be done.

Does anybody know what the heck is going in Washington these days? Why do we the people keep electing imbeciles. I know, because we the people like their bumper sticker slogans and they tell us what we want to hear.
Click to expand...

Yes, the one paragraph out of thousands and thousands of pages of text seems straightforward when you ignore those other million words.

However, if you were to look at those other words, you'd find some that clearly suggest that the tax credits would also apply to people who bought through an exchange run by the feds. This creates "ambiguity" and the court has a process, established long before AVA was even proposed, to resolve such ambiguities. This process requires the court to defer to the agency's interpretation of the text unless one can provide a compelling case for why they should not be deferred to (such as the interpretation is clearly in conflict with any reasonable interpretation of the text, unconstitutionality, etc)

In the decision that allows the subsidies, the court cites several examples of text that make no sense unless the authors intended the subsidies to apply to all of the exchanges, and not just those "established by the States". Ergo, "ambiguity"...Ergo "deference" to the IRS's interpretation
 
clownboy said:
They are supposed to be partial, towards the Constitution. I agree they are not that.
Click to expand...

They're supposed to rule on the Constitution's applicability to the law, they don't care about the Constitution anymore, they only care about their own personal feelings and their political masters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom